THIRTY per cent of sports competitions still give less prize money to women than to men.

The appropriate level of reward, of course, depends upon what the public want to watch and how much they are prepared to pay.

In different cases this could be equal, more for men or more for women. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t object to seeing the money for sportsmen and sportswomen shared equally.

This is based less on a spirit of egalitarianism than on it seeming no worse than the men deserve for being so slow to adapt.

The apparent symmetry of having men’s and women’s competitions is strongly suggestive of equal prizes being the fair solution. But there is no need to have any men’s competitions. These could be replaced by completely open people’s competitions at no great loss to the men.

The appearance of symmetry then evaporates and it becomes clear that a women’s competition is a restricted entry competition.

The men should either open and re-brand their competitions, at the cost of risking an occasional defeat by a woman, or share out the money.

John Riseley, Harrogate